Parsing semantics

It is unfortunate that we've already proven Godwin's Law in a forum "committed to real journalism (as opposed to mere opinion-spewing and bloggery)." I'll dismiss the ad hominem and stick to the Obama discussion.

If it's true that Pakistan permitted the operation to assassinate al-Libi, we're still left with a situation that is in line with Obama's statement: we should act when Musharraf fails to act. To disagree is to believe that Musharraf "acted" by allowing U.S. drones to fly. But many others would define "acting" as making an effort to capture or kill those responsible for the attacks on New York and the pentagon. Therefore your argument against Obama's statement hinges on semantics, and is unlikely to sway people given Obama's unambiguous statements emphasizing diplomacy over warfare.

While we may disagree I do respect your stance. Democracy thrives on balance.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.